Skip to comments.Pollard Was Blamed for Crimes of Arch-Spies Ames and Hannsen
Posted on 05/26/2003 9:17:56 PM PDT by Nachum
As supporters of Jonathan Pollard prepare for a prayer rally on his behalf at the Western Wall on June 4, it appears that one of the most important questions surrounding his case has been answered. Former federal prosecutor John Loftus, in an article in the June issue of Moment Magazine, writes the following:
"There is a good reason why neither Congress nor the American Jewish leadership supports the release of Jonathan Pollard from prison: They all were told a lie - a humongous Washington whopper of a lie. The lie was [that] Pollard had supposedly given Israel a list of every American spy inside the Soviet Union... Soviet agents in Israel, posing as Israeli intelligence agents, passed the information to Moscow, which then wiped out American human assets in the Soviet Union...
"A week after [Pollard was sentenced to life in prison], the Washington Times reported that the United States had identified Shabtai Kalmanovich as the Soviet spy in Israel who supposedly worked for the Mossad but was actually working for the KGB; he had betrayed American secrets to Moscow. Washington insiders winked knowingly at one another: Pollard's contact in Israel had been caught. Just to make sure that Pollard was blamed, U.S. intelligence sources, several months later, leaked word to the press of the Kalmanovich connection...
Citing 'American intelligence sources,' the UPI announced that the 'sensitive intelligence material relayed to Israel by Jonathan Pollard had reached the KGB.'"
Loftus then fires off his bombshell:
"But it was all untrue. Every bit of it. Pollard wasn't the serial killer. The Jew didn't do it. It was one of their own WASPs - Aldrich Ames, a drunken senior CIA official who sold the names of America's agents to the Russians for cash. Pollard was framed for Ames' crime, while Ames kept on drinking and spying for the Soviets for several more years Ames was arrested in February 1994, and confessed to selling out American agents in the Soviet Union, but not all of them. It was only logical to assume that Pollard had betrayed the rest of them, as one former CIA official admitted shortly after Ames' arrest
"No one dreamed that yet another high-level Washington insider had sold us out to Soviet intelligence. Years passed, and eventually a Russian defector told the truth. A senior FBI official - Special Agent Robert Hanssen - had betrayed the rest of our agents. Hanssen was arrested in February 2001, and soon confessed in order to avoid the death penalty. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole."
Loftus then writes that a low-level decision was finally made in the Navy's intelligence service to re-examine the Pollard case, and "with sickening chagrin, the Navy discovered that the evidence needed to clear Pollard had been under its nose all along" - namely, that Pollard did not have the special "blue stripe" clearance needed for access to the room in which the list of secret American agents inside Russia was kept. "There is no way on earth," Loftus concludes, "that Jonathan Pollard could have entered the file room, let alone the safe where the list was kept."
Loftus also writes that he then "began to realize that Pollard's tale was only the beginning of a much bigger story about a major America intelligence scandal" - a cover-up of the deep ties between Saudi Arabia and terrorists such as Osama Bin-Laden. "Whenever the FBI or CIA came close to uncovering the Saudi terrorist connection," Loftus writes, "their investigations were mysteriously terminated. In hindsight, I can only conclude that some of our own Washington bureaucrats have been protecting the Al Qaeda leadership and their oil-rich Saudi backers from investigation for more than a decade."
"I am not the only one to reach this conclusion. In his autobiography, Oliver North confirmed that every time he wanted to do something about terrorism, [then-Defense Secretary Weinberger, whose secret memo led to Pollard's life sentence] stopped him because it might upset the Saudis and jeopardize the flow of oil to the U.S. "John O'Neill, a former FBI agent and our nation's top Al Qaeda expert, stated in a 2001 book written by Jean Charles Brisard, a noted French intelligence analyst, that everything we wanted to know about terrorism could be found in Saudi Arabia. O'Neill warned the Beltway bosses repeatedly that if the Saudis were to continue funding Al Qaeda, it would end up costing American lives, according to several intelligence sources. As long as the oil kept flowing, they just shrugged. Outraged by the Saudi cover-up, O'Neill quit the FBI and became the new chief of security at the World Trade Center. In a bitter irony, the man who could have exposed his bosses' continuous cover-up of the Saudi-Al Qaeda link was himself killed by Al Qaeda on 9/11..." "Pollard never thought he was betraying his country. And he never did, although he clearly violated its laws. He just wanted to help protect Israelis and Americans from terrorists. Now in prison for nearly two decades, Pollard, who is in his late 40s, grows more ill year by year. If, as seems likely, American bureaucrats choose to fight a prolonged delaying action over a new hearing, Pollard will probably die in prison. There are people in power inside the Beltway who have been playing for time. Time for them ran out on 9/11. Sooner or later, they are going to be held accountable. I hope that Pollard lives to see it."
The full text of Pollard's attorneys' largely-laudatory response to Loftus' article is available at "www.jonathanpollard.org/".
Pollard gave the Israelis exactly one piece of information, and it was information that the US was treaty-bound to give to Israel. When time came that the information was important, the US reneged on the treaty, which is an old story when it comes to the traditional relationship between USA and its smaller partner. Pollard then took it on himself to pass the information, even though his superiors forbade him to do so.
Had he not done that, Israel would not exist today, which is quite likely the reason his superiors would not hand it over.
The information in question jeopardized no agents, no secrets were "passed on to China" (or Russia for that matter), and it's an open question who actually broke the law in handling it.
His loyalty should have been to the United States of America, he was given orders, he ignored them, he did commit treason, he is guilty. Those are the facts, everything else is window dressing.
Now that's one piece of conspiracy-theory material that the Bush administration would prefer to keep muzzled. According to anti-Bush conspiracy theorists, O'Neill quit his FBI job only two weeks before 9/11, therefore he may have known about the impending attack on the WTC. Given how much he knew about the Bush administration's reluctance to confront the Saudis, his death was not a bitter irony, but quite a convenient one for the White House, so the theory goes.
I can only begin to wonder which Democratic leader might have the boldness and cunning to present a case against Bush for negligence before 9/11 at some point in the future.
Oh, the rot in the FBI (and the CIA, and all around the place) is of a far earlier date than the Bush administration, not that it has sole roots in Democrat administrations. But Bush is cleaning house as well as possible. Remember that these guys have protection, and just firing them isn't an off-the-cuff sort of thing even for a president.
Bottom line, though: I think that if the dems tried, it would splatter themselves too badly. People might start asking pointy questions about all sorts of stuff. And believe me, there's worse than just a few criminal officials.
Pollard should stay behind bars, since we weren't allowed to execute him after his trial.
Clinton, to help Hillary get the jewish vote, was ready to pardon him, but Pollard would have been far more controversial then any of the other pardons, and he knew he would, in essence, possibly ruin Hillary, if Tenet resigned, and start yacking.
Isn't that special? Nothing like not letting those irksome little things called laws get in the way of your desires, right?
Loftus is doing a great job of making Pollard into Dreyfuss. Was it a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that sent Pollard to prison, just because he was a porr wittle Jew?
Graham from Florida has been trying to pull some of the conspiracy crap, however, the other canidates are basically treating him like a kook. If the dems were to play that game, it could ruin Hillary Clinton, leave Clinton an even bigger disgrace, and destory numerious members of the democratic party.
Honestly, who's going to get more blame for the lapses, a Vice President who just came back from the private sector and was retired untill the 2000 election, a secretary of defence who had no plans on ever coming back and was happy in the private sector,an attorony general who thought he would still be a senator, or, the previous administration, that had been recieving warnings, had dealt with al quada numerious times, and then killed its own airline security study.
Alot of this is coincedenc, Al Gore did have a good reason to suppress the airline security study (Gary Hart wasn't to happy though), he needed campaign donations from the airline industry and he got them.
A few little problems however: 1) I have never before heard that Pollard was blamed for the deaths of Soviet agents. The whole awfully convenient "blue stripe" angle is totally new to the story. Could Loftus be creating a charge against Pollard just to clear him of it?; 2) Hansen and Ames have long been associated with the deaths of Soviet agents, but I have never seen their names linked to Pollard in any way; 3) Pollard's most serious traitorous acts have never been disclosed, just as Cap Weinberger demanded, so how can anyone be sure Loftus knows what he's talking about?
What others? Where are they? Or are you and Loftus channelling John O'Neill from beyond the grave?
Blaming Pollard for these agents is common. It's been on this forum quite often.
Influence? Its a matter of commonsense politics really. Israel produces nothing which keeps the economy humming (excepting humbug like this perhaps), Saudi produces tons of it. When oil prices rise, its the regular folks back home complaining to congress, not the Saudi's or their registered agents. Saudi has revealed its power twice - 1973 and 1979. Do we really need another 4 year recession to remind us of it? Most people think not.
In any case, I fail to see the connection that would make the Saudi's gravely interested in getting Pollard behind bars. Or does he have the explosive proof of Saudi guilt for everything ... if only he could be freed to tell it. I've heard of a lot of prisoners with explosive proofs of this or that if only you would free them. You believe that tripe?
Hmmmm.... Israel is a hi-tech country which produces, among other things, medical wizardry and improvements for US armamante, is selected by Intel as the place to be, and has developed the latest generation of Intel chips. Saudi is producing terrorists and camel dung by itself, and with the help of foreigners living there (in "open prison" conditions), oil.
You're pretty transparent, Hermann. Why are you here and not on LibertyForum?
An open question? I thought that question was settled when Pollard freely admitted to conspiracy to commit espionage -- a crime for which the Rosenbergs were both executed.
That Pollard gave up the names of US agents inside the USSR is ludicrous. That type of information is very closely held and would not end up on the desk of a low-level officer like Pollard.
False. Pollard was sending data to the Israelis for 18 months, After one trip to a classified government library, Pollard needed a handtruck to carry the documents out to his car--something not consistent with giving the Israelis "exactly one piece of information."
This says it all. Pollard should remain behind bars until he breathes his last. He was a spy who betrayed his country. To whom he betrayed it, or for what ostensibly idealistic reasons, is irrelevant. To say otherwise would be to excuse the "idealistic" Americans who betrayed their country to spy for the Russians, such as Alger Hiss and the Rosenburgs.
Traitors should be executed "for the encouragement of the others" -- to send a very clear message that treason will not be tolerated.
Hmm.. he was probably started off by that one thing, then. 18 months of activity isn't generally what you associate with a professional spy. They tend to last a little longer.
Then again, there are so many lies floating around regarding the Pollard case that I know about, that for all I know everything put out there may be lies.
Well, yes of course. The weird thing is how wound up people tend to get over this one spy, who was relatively harmless.
For example, I hear no clamoring to have Hanssen (who actually cost lives) shot. Neither do I hear any kind of recognition that US spies in other countries (they are wherever the US has interests, you know) actually should be rounded up and shot.
All this seems to add up to one set of rules for one country, or even for one person - which makes me suspicious as ... well, just suspicious :). Let's see if Loftus manages to shake a few things loose.
Never heard that one. This admission of his, where was that reported?
FWIW, I have deep admiration for John Loftus. He has ventured to expose the profound anti-Semistism driving both the US and UK State Department/Foreign Offices in his books.
That's because you don't hear the devotees of St. Pollard the Putupon clamoring to reduce Hanssen's sentence. There's no such thing as a "harmless" spy against the United States, which is why Pollard will die in his U.S. prison cell, just like Hanssen.
Diabolical seems the word for it.
There were reasons why people like myself were so infuriated at the visits to Crawford Ranch by Saudi Princes. It was a continuation of Baker Boy diplomacy.
Thank God (sincerely) that Bush answers to a higher source than his patrimony.
Lol. No, I don't expect it would be Pollard devotees clamoring for that, it would be Hanssen devotees. But for all that - wanna bet that they won't turn up when the case is a few years old? How long was the Hanssen sentence, btw?
There's no such thing as a "harmless" spy against the United States
Bah. Spying goes on all the time, and it's even an "accepted" part of international relations. The US spies, Israel spies, Belgium spies, Britain spies - you get the drift. They all spy on both friends and enemies, and generally nothing whatsoever happens to a caught spy except deportation or exchange.
If shooting spies became in fashion, we'd have a bloodbath.
FWIW, here's the "Pollard authorized version". Not exactly the one I had, but not exactly what you claim he admits to either.
He also learned that the objective of cutting off the flow of information to Israel was to severely curtail Israel's ability to act independently in defense of her own interests.
Furthermore, on May 12, 1998, Israel formally acknowledged Jonathan Pollard had been a bona fide Israeli agent. This fact wiped out any remaining doubt about Jonathan Pollard's motives. Being an official agent is, by definition, the polar opposite of being a mercenary.
Prior to sentencing, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger delivered a 46-page classified memorandum to the sentencing judge. Since then, neither Pollard nor any of his cleared attorneys have ever been allowed to access the memorandum to challenge the false charges it contains-a clear violation of Pollard's constitutional rights.
The day before sentencing, Weinberger delivered a four-page supplemental memorandum to the sentencing judge. In it, he falsely accused Pollard of treason. Also in the supplemental memorandum, Weinberger advocated a life sentence in clear violation of Pollard's plea agreement. The implication that follows from Weinberger's false characterization of Pollard's offense as "treason" is that the country Pollard served, Israel, is an enemy state.
The Court of Appeals, in a two-to-one decision, rejected the challenge, largely on procedural grounds.
The majority placed heavy emphasis on the failure to appeal from the life sentence in a timely manner, and on the resulting far heavier burden faced by Pollard in seeking to challenge the sentence via habeas corpus. [Note: "Habeas corpus" is a procedure by which an incarcerated person may bring a court challenge to the legality of his or her incarceration - often long after the underlying case has been concluded.]
In a dissenting opinion, Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Williams called the case "a fundamental miscarriage of justice," and wrote that he would have ordered that Pollard's sentence be vacated.
The CIA claim that another highly-placed spy in the U.S. had to exist in order to give Jonathan Pollard his highly specific tasking orders is a complete fabrication. To understand how Pollard was tasked by Israel to secure specific documents, see: Was there another U.S. spy tasking Pollard? - Mr. X Exposed.
The Israeli government recognized long ago that Jonathan's sentence was unjust, that the documents he delivered to Israel did not remotely cause the damage that the prosecution claimed but never proved. As a result of this recognition, various Israeli administrations have negotiated, as a matter of basic fairness, to secure Jonathan's release.
Since 1995, within the context of the peace process, the US has repeatedly exploited the plight of Jonathan Pollard to extract heavy concessions from Israel.
However despite express promises made by the United States to Israel, Jonathan Pollard remains in jail.
Although President Clinton promised Prime Minister Rabin that he would release Jonathan as part of a Middle East peace settlement, the President refused to honor his promise after Rabin was assassinated.
Both before and again during the Wye summit negotiations in the fall of 1998, President Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard. Pollard was the deal-maker at Wye which enabled the accords to be completed.
In September, 1998, just before the mid-term Congressional elections, President Clinton (who at the time was facing impeachment hearings and in need of a foreign policy PR victory) asked Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to attend a three-way summit with the Palestinians at Wye River, Maryland.
Clinton knew that a successful summit at Wye just before the Congressional elections would be good not only for his image, but would also reap great political benefits for the Democrats in their bid to regain control of Congress. As an inducement to Netanyahu, Clinton promised to release Jonathan Pollard within the context of the summit.
Understanding the value of Jonathan Pollard for his own re-election bid, and needing him as a sweetener to sell any kind of "peace" deal to the Israeli people, Netanyahu ignored the entreaties of Republican friends like Newt Gingrich and agreed to attend the summit. (Gingrich would later repay Netanyahu by leading the Republican charge of slander and lies against Jonathan Pollard.)
President Clinton personally worked out the details of the deal in a late-night private session with a Palestinian and an Israeli representative.
The Pollard negotiation was the deal-maker at Wye which allowed the summit to be successfully wrapped up and a signing ceremony to be planned for the next morning in Washington, on Friday October 23, 1998.
Netanyahu threatened not to attend the signing ceremony unless he got the Pollard side letter. Clinton said, "Trust me." Netanyahu, knowing he was about to be double-crossed by Clinton over Pollard for the second time, refused.
Netanyahu demanded that in the absence of a side letter of guarantee, Pollard should be freed into his custody immediately, or no signing ceremony. Arik Sharon supported Netanyahu and they threatened to leave Wye without signing the accords.
He sent emissaries to Capitol Hill to hold emergency meetings with leading Senators and Congressmen to enlist their support in publicly denouncing Pollard's release. Many lies were told by the CIA emissaries about Jonathan Pollard to convince the legislators to act swiftly and in unison. Believing the lies, the legislators complied and began an unprecedented series of public actions to prevent the release of Jonathan Pollard.
Under heavy public pressure and betrayed by his own Minister of Defense, Yitzhak Mordecai*, who closed ranks with Clinton, Netanyahu folded and accepted this private deal. The signing ceremony was held in Washington as scheduled. *(Mordecai himself is now on trial in Israel in 2001 for sexual assault.)
However, eye witnesses to the Pollard deal at Wye, including the Israeli and the Palestinian who had negotiated the deal with Clinton and the former Israeli Cabinet Secretary, all later contradicted the White House version of events and affirmed that President Clinton had committed himself to the release of Jonathan Pollard as an integral part of the Wye Accords.
Note: Prime Minister Netanyahu was the first prime minster of Israel to agree to free Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. That is the price the Americans demanded for Pollard at Wye. To this day, this represents a keen embarrassment for Netanyahu and his party, even more so since he did not receive Pollard but the Palestinian murders were released nonetheless. That is why no official source from the Netanyahu government ever wants to publicly admit to it. They keep the details to a minimum, but all concur that Pollard's freedom was bought and paid for by "concessions"at Wye.
The Palestinians were outraged, and insisted that these common criminals were not the prisoners that they had bargained for at Wye. The Americans angrily protested. Netanyahu reminded the Americans that the Wye Accords do not specify exactly which prisoners Israel must release. Critics wondered if the Prime Minister had lost his mind to antagonize the Americans this way.
Only those close to Prime Minister Netanyahu understood that this was Netanyahu's private, pointed reminder to Bill Clinton that if he was thinking of double-crossing him yet a third time over Pollard, he should think again. No Pollard, no release for the Palestinian murderers and terrorists.
Unfortunately for Jonathan Pollard, Netanyahu's government fell before he was able to act on this.
The story, though not logical, sounded plausible and it became popular to cite the opposition of the American Intelligence community as the reason Clinton did not honor his commitment at Wye to free Pollard.
This was soon exposed as the lame excuse it was when Clinton freed a group of unrepentant FALN terrorists in the fall of 1999, in an attempt to improve his wife's popularity with New York State's Hispanic community in her election bid for the Senate. (See Senate Race Page.)
To this day, the same lame excuse continues to be used to justify the unjustifiable failure of Clinton to honor his commitment.
Clinton ignored a solid wall of opposition from the Justice, Intelligence and Defense departments and Congress, invoked his powers of executive clemency and set the FALN terrorists free. In doing so, he unequivocally put the lie to the notion that any government agency might tie his hands or influence his decision in matters of clemency. (See FALN Page and Clemency Page.)
Rabbi Eliyahu repeated the same offer every year after that in private letters to President Clinton.
Every offer went unacknowledged until the fall of 2000, when Esther Pollard received a letter from the White House indicating that the President was aware of the former chief Rabbi's offer and that it would be part of the President's consideration in reaching a final decision on her husband's case.
When he left office in January 2001, Jonathan Pollard was not included among those that to whom Clinton granted clemency:
On his last day in office, Clinton granted clemency to 140 people. Many who received executive clemency had been convicted of very serious offenses, including murder, robbery and drug dealing. Some of those pardoned had served no prison time at all before being pardoned. Among those pardoned were Clinton's brother, and a former head of the CIA. (See Clemency Page.)
The motion, supported by documentation, presents a compelling and very disturbing picture of serious government misconduct that went unchecked by Mr. Pollard's then-counsel. As a result of that misconduct, and as a result of his attorney's ineffectiveness Jonathan Pollard was sentenced to life in prison on the basis of false allegations, and under circumstances that violated his plea agreement. (See Legal Doc: Declaration of Jonathan Jay Pollard In Support of Motion for Resentencing. See also Legal Doc: Memorandum of Law in Support of Jonathan Jay Pollard's § 2255 Motion for Resentencing.)
In September of 2000, Jonathan Pollard's attorneys filed a separate motion requesting that attorney Eliot Lauer be allowed access to the secret portions of the Pollard court docket. (See Legal Doc: Motion to Unseal the Pollard Record.)
Both Lauer and Semmelman hold TOP SECRET level security clearances, which they obtained from the Justice Department in order to be eligible to see their client's full record.
A motion for reconsideration was filed January 18, 2001. (See Legal Doc: Motion for Reconsideration of Court Order.)
Between close friends and strong allies, that ought to be enough.
For what it's worth, indeed. It's worth crap. It's like reading O.J. Simpson's version of "Who Killed Nicole Simpson"?
Of course we have. How do you think the not uncommon exchanges of jailed spies come about? By telepathy?
What is rather uncommon in the Pollard case is the sort of strange verbiage you just engaged in: "shamelessly lobbying" and similar.
And you know this, of course, having been on the inside of the Pollard case for all these long years :).
Actually, I think it's put out by his lawyer. There's probably not all that much in it that could be shot down. That would just be stupid.
You can't be a little bit pregnant, and you can't be a little bit traitorous. There is no question of degree. Had Pollard not been discovered, it is likely he would have been given access to other classified information later in his career. Are you naive enough to believe that he would not have provided it to the Israelis? The psychological basis of an agent relationship is the ability to the agent to rationalize his actions, and if he were unable to do so, then his handlers would have no doubt helped. I'm not surprised to hear Pollard still spouting his rationalizations - but I'm appalled by the willingness of so many others, like you, to trumpet the same line of bravo sierra.
Let me make it simple for you: Pollard took an oath to his country - this country and on the basis of that oath, was given access to classified information, in order to do his job as a low-level analyst. Without authorization, and contrary to all the conditions placed upon his access to that classified information, he stole that information and shared it with a foreign power. Whether or not information is shared elsewhere on an official basis with that government is completely irrelevant - Those decisions are made and reviewed at a level well above Pollard's pay grade. Pollard was, and is, a traitor - plain and simple.
Many of us did in fact call for the execution of Walker, Hannsen, and (especially) Ames. I find your implication that hostility to Pollard is anti-semitic ("one set of rules for one country") to be extremely offensive. I am sympathetic to the Israeli cause - but that sympathy ends when they conduct hostile espionage operations against the nation which has been their most stalwart supporter - especially since, absent U.S. support, Israel would probably no longer exist as a nation.
Yes, we do collect intelligence in many countries - But we do not receive hundreds of billions of dollars in annual aid from any of them. By conducting hostile operations against us, including both intelligence operations and semi-clandestine efforts to influence U.S. policy, they demonstrate an astounding lack of gratitude for all that we have done for them.
Neither do I hear any kind of recognition that US spies in other countries (they are wherever the US has interests, you know) actually should be rounded up and shot.
Uh, yeah - I did know that. I'm not sure what your point is, however. Are you implying that foreign agents, providing information to U.S. intelligence organizations, would not be executed if they were discovered by their own governments? That's pretty naive. Why should we not demand the same for those who betray this country?
Pollard gave the Israelis so much information for the $50,000 he was paid that his handler had to lease a high capacity photocopier.
The information in question jeopardized no agents, no secrets were "passed on to China" (or Russia for that matter)
You're fairly sure then that sources and methods were not revealed in the raw intel that Pollard turned over to a KGB-penetrated Mossad? Well, as long as you're sure...
Pollard's life sentence is also disproportionate even when compared to the sentences of those who committed far more serious offences by spying for enemy nations.
|Name||Country Spied For||Sentence/Punishment||Time Served
|Jonathan Pollard||Israel||Life imprisonment|
|Michael Schwartz||Saudi Arabia||Discharged from Navy||No time served.|
|Peter Lee||China||1 year in halfway house||No jail time.|
|Samuel Morison||Great Britain||2 years||3 months|
|Phillip Selden||El Salvador||2 years|
|Steven Baba||South Africa||8 years; reduced to 2 years||5 months|
|Sharon Scranage||Ghana||5 years; reduced to 2 years||8 months|
|Jean Baynes||Phillipines||41 months||15 months|
|Abdul Kader Helmy||Egypt||4 years||2 years|
|Geneva Jones||Liberia||37 months|
|Frederick Hamilton||Ecuador||37 months|
|Joseph Brown||Phillipines||6 years|
|Michael Allen||Phillipines||8 years|
|Robert Kim||South Korea||9 years|
|Thomas Dolce||South Africa||10 years||5.2 years|
|Steven Lalas||Greece||14 years|
* Time served before release is shown where known. Other cases of early release exist.
|Name||Country Spied For||Sentence||Time Served
|James Wood||Soviet Union||2 years|
|Sahag Dedyan||Soviet Union||3 years|
|Randy Jeffries||Soviet Union||3-9 years|
|Amarylis Santos||Cuba||3½ years|
|Joseph Santos||Cuba||4 years|
|Mariano Faget||Cuba||5 years|
|Brian Horton||Soviet Union||6 years|
|Alejandro Alonso||Cuba||7 years|
|William Bell||Poland||8 years|
|Alfred Zoho||East Germany||8 years|
|Nikolay Ogarodnikova||Soviet Union||8 years|
|Francis X. Pizzo||Soviet Union||10 years|
|Daniel Richardson||Soviet Union||10 years|
|Ernst Forbich||East Germany||15 years|
|William Whalen||Soviet Union||15 years|
|Edwin Moore||Soviet Union||15 years|
|Troung Dinh Ung||North Vietnam||15 years|
|Ronald Humphrey||North Vietnam||15 years|
|Kurt Alan Stand||East Germany||17½ years|
|Robert Lipka||Soviet Union||18 years|
|David Barnett||Soviet Union||18 years|
|Svetlana Ogarodnikova||Soviet Union||18 years|
|Albert Sombolay||Iraq & Jordan||19 years|
|Richard Miller||Soviet Union||20 years||6 years|
|Theresa Maria Squillacote||East Germany||21.8 years|
|Sarkis Paskallan||Soviet Union||22 years|
|Harold Nicholson||Soviet Union||23 years|
|David Boone||Soviet Union||24 years|
|Ana Belen Montes||Cuba||25 years|
|Clayton Lonetree||Soviet Union||25 years||9 years|
|Michael Walker||Soviet Union||25 years||15 years|
|Bruce Ott||Soviet Union||25 years|
|Kelly Warren||Hungary &
|Earl Pitts||Soviet Union||27 years|
|H.W. Boachanhaupi||Soviet Union||30 years|
|Roderick Ramsay||Hungary &
|James Hall||Soviet Union
& East Germany
|Christopher Boyce||Soviet Union||40 years|
|William Kampiles||Soviet Union||40 years||19 years|
|Veldik Enger||Soviet Union||50 years|
|R.P. Charnyayev||Soviet Union||50 years|
|Marian Zacharski||Poland||Life||4 years|
|Aldrich Ames||Soviet Union||Life|
|Robert Hanssen||Soviet Union||Life|
* Time served before release is shown where known. Other cases of early release exist.
Aldrich Ames' treatment was far more benign, and (except for a relatively short period of time during debriefing) did not include the rigours of long years of solitary; nor was he ever subjected to the harsh conditions of "K" Unit at Marion - even though his offence was far more serious.
Agree so far? I hope so! If not, give me fifty (virtual) push-ups, Jarhead!
Anyway, here's the jump...
(3) Pollard is no longer a seceret, and the stories told aren't so secret anymore if true, or those stories are false otherwise.
Thus (4a) Since the secrets out, he should be released already! Leaving him in just creates high interest in what should be secret. It calls attention to things we don't want attention called to.
Or (4b) he's being held on false pretenses.
Either way, let him go and let the attention of onlookers be dissapated.
My impression is that spies (from all over) are actually discovered from time to time, in all kinds of places. My impression is also that it's relatively uncommon that they're shot (or even imprisoned forever), at least in friendly countries - I imagine matters would be different in places such as North Korea or China or Iran. But most western countries, if you do a simple count, do not even have the death penalty, including for espionage.
You're shameless in your support of a convicted spy who betrayed the U.S.
And here's why: an American might be shameless if he supported spying against the US (given that all the facts were on the table and all that kind of thing), but a foreign government? What you're in effect demanding is that the Israeli government live by American interest. That is not the case, regardless the fact that many people seem to have some notion that the US actually owns Israel. Israel is another state, looking out for its own interests.
Pollard Has Been Punished Enough
March 8, 1994 - Theodore Olson, Esq. - The Wall St. Journal
It is plain than columnist Al Hunt and the anti-Pollard faction within the Clinton administration for whom he is giving voice do not like Jonathan Pollard (President Clinton, Dont Free the Traitor Pollard, February 24). But his rationale for opposing clemency is mostly misinformation and ignorance, and his conclusion implicitly concedes the shallowness of his convictions.
As Mr. Pollards attorney, I offer these counterbalancing facts:
First, the matter of motives and money. Mr. Hunts carefully chosen litany of phrases such as big bucks, well-paid and well-heeled produces a profoundly false impression. As Mr. Hunt knows, Mr. Pollard sought out the Israelis and volunteered to give, not sell, information to Israel about nuclear, chemical and biological weapons under construction by Iraq and others for use against Israel. Six months down the line, Pollard was persuaded to accept paltry sums - pocket change compared with what Washington journalists routinely receive for weekend television appearances. Intelligence services know that it is impossible to control idealists - and it is standard procedure to corrupt them with money. Mr. Pollard was wrong to acquiesce, but everyone who has studied the record objectively knows that he acted as he did because he could not stand the implications of silence in the face of another Holocaust, not for money.
Second, Mr. Hunt repeatedly uses the term traitor. That word describes one who commits treason, the only crime considered so egregious that is mentioned in our Constitution. It is defined by law as committing war against the U.S. or aiding its enemies. It is punishable by death. Mr. Pollard did not commit, nor was he charged with, treason. Even the government has admitted that is use of the word treason and traitor to describe Mr. Pollard was wrong and regrettable. The court that reviewed Mr. Pollards case, whose opinion Mr. Hunt quotes, said that the traitor could justifiably be called rank hyperbole.
Third, Mr. Hunts comparison of Mr. Pollard to the Aldrich Ames case is appalling. Mr. Ames allegedly aided the Soviet Union when they were implacable enemies of the U.S.: Mr. Pollard helped one of our closest allies. Mr. Ames is said to have betrayed American agents: Mr. Pollard told Israel about instruments of mass destruction against Jews. Mr. Ames purportedly took millions of dollars and was motivated by greed: Mr. Pollard gave defensive information to save a people that had been nearly exterminated 50 years ago. What can Mr. Hunt be thinking?
Fourth, Mr. Hunt has mischaracterized the court decision regarding the governments violation of the Pollard plea bargain. Mr. Pollards appeal was rejected as untimely, not because it was lacking in merit. All three judges who considered the appeal expressed considerable skepticism concerning the governments conduct. One of the three went so far as to call Mr. Pollards treatment a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The fact is that the government blatantly betrayed Mr. Pollard and its written contract with him. It made three promises, and broke them all. It agreed to represent to the sentencing judge that Mr. Pollards cooperation had been of considerable value to enforcement of the espionage laws, but did precisely the opposite, denigrating the value and motivation for that compensation - listing it among factors compelling a substantial sentence. It promised to limit its sentencing argumentation to the facts and circumstances of Mr. Pollards offense, but instead heaped savage vituperation on his motives on his motives, character and arrogance. Finally, it agreed not to seek a sentence of life in prison, but obtained exactly such a sentence by, among other things, demanding a sentence commensurate with the crime of treason.
Fifth, Mr. Hunt rejects as bogus and irrelevant the assertion that Mr. Pollards sentence was excessive. He could not be more wrong. Mr. Pollard has served more than eight years, mostly in solitary confinement in the nations harshest prison. No one who gave defense information to an ally has ever been punished so severely. The government did not even charge him with harming or having reason to know that his actions would harm the U.S. Once again, Mr. Hunt has outpaces Mr. Pollards prosecutors by pressing to maintain a level of punishment that the prosecutors promised not to seek.
Sixth, it is curious that Mr. Hunt thinks that the information Mr. Pollard gave away was so sensitive that officials still insist they cant provide specifics. What officials? The Office of Naval Intelligence has said that much of Mr. Pollards information was declassified during the Gulf War. Mr. Pollards chief prosecutor has urged publicly that it all be declassified.
Finally, after all of Mr. Hunts rhetoric, his main grievance seems to be that Israel has failed to come clean and acknowledge what a despicable act Pollard performed. If it did so, he concludes, then clemency [would] be in order. This is an amazing conclusion because Mr. Pollard himself has admitted that what he did was wrong and has expressed great remorse for his actions. And two successive Israeli prime ministers have put in writing formal requests for mercy - not forgiveness - for the Pollard affair. The significance of these extraordinary official requests cannot have been lost on President Clinton - who, incidentally, may not be anxious to acknowledge publicly that the U.S. has spied on Israel. What more does Mr. Hunt want? Some sort of Chinese Communist public act of self-abasement?
There is more, but too little space to say it all. Defense Secretary-nominee Bobby Inman has publicly admitted that he cut off Israel from promised defensive information as retaliation for Israels destruction of Iraqs nuclear reactors. (Maybe Mr. Hunt can tell us how many America soldiers would have died in the Persian Gulf had Israel not taken that action.) Mr. Pollard stepped into the breach and opened the spigot that Mr. Inman had closed. He had no right to do so, but voices as diverse as Cardinal Law, Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, Benjamin Hooks, Father Drinan, Sen. Carol Mosely-Braun, Pat Robertson, dozens of Members of Congress, the city councils of New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, and two Israeli prime ministers have pleaded for an end to his punishment. Apparently many officials at State, Justice and the White House now agree.
The fundamental issue is when we can stop punishing a man who broke the law to expose a massive, malignant and malicious arms buildup so that a beleaguered people could defend themselves from weapons of terror and mass destruction. It might take some courage from President Clinton to do the right thing, but Mr. Pollard has been punished enough.
Theodore B. Olsen Esq.
Theodore B. Olson is the former lead attorney for Jonathan Pollard.
The document below was written by a former Pollard attorney, Theodore Olsen, to counter a 1993 NJCRAC position paper on the Pollard case. The document is as relevant today as when it was originally written. Many of the old lies that it deals with are still being circulated today by the same Jewish sources.
Mr. Lawrence Rubin
Executive Vice Chairman NJCRAC
National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council
443 Park Avenue South
New York New York 10016-7322
April 9, 1993
RE: Jonathan J. Pollard
Dear Mr. Rubin:
As you know, we represent Jonathan J. Pollard. We have received a copy of the Jerome Chanes NJCRAC memorandum of March 23, 1993 disseminated to NJCRAC and CJF member agencies entitled "The Pollard Case: Myths and Facts." The Chanes memorandum states that it is intended to "provide accurate information" about the "substantive issues" involved in the Pollard case. However, it contains many materially inaccurate and damaging statements concerning Mr. Pollard and his case. We therefore request that you circulate this letter as soon as possible to all of the member agencies that received the Chanes memorandum
The "Myths and Facts" memorandum states that there has been an "unfortunate pattern of misrepresentation" concerning the Pollard case. This regrettable and entirely gratuitous innuendo is apparently intended to accuse Mr. Pollard's supporters of misrepresentations. It is not true. Naturally, in any highly visible case such as this involving many people working to achieve a common objective, there may be misconceptions that develop. But the Pollard supporters have made every effort to supply scrupulously accurate information concerning his case. In fact, the NJCRAC memorandum contains more errors and misleading perceptions than anything we have seen. That is why it is so important for you to correct it by distributing this response.
2. Disproportionality of sentence
Mr. Pollard's sentence of life in prison is grossly disproportionate to punishments in comparable cases. Your wholly inaccurate and distorted rejection of this fact ignores both the facts and fundamental principles of our criminal justice system.
You assert that "comparisons between Pollard's sentence and sentences meted out to others . . . are inappropriate," and that such an analysis of the proportionality of Mr. Pollard's sentence is improper as a jurisprudential matter. That, of course, is nonsense It is a fundamental principle of justice and jurisprudence that the law should treat similarly situated individuals similarly and that punishments, insofar as possible, should be relatively equal and proportionate. The fact that Mr. Pollard's sentence is completely out of scale with those imposed for comparable offenses is a highly salient consideration in his efforts to seek a commutation of his sentence.
Moreover, the Supreme court of the United States has held as a matter of constitutional "principle that a criminal sentence must be proportional to the crime for which the defendant has been convicted-" Solem V. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 290 (1983) (emphasis added) . The Court has struck down as unconstitutional punishments that are "significantly disproportionate to [the] crime," id. at 303, based on a comparison "with sentences imposed on other criminals" Id. At 292; see also Harmelin V. Michigan, 111 S. Ct. 2680, 2702-05 (1991) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (reiterating that the constitution forbids "extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime") - It is well recognized that disproportionality in sentencing when compared to others convicted of similar crimes is "fundamentally unfair," and accordingly, it "has also been a fundamental part of . . . the clemency philosophy." Kobil, The Quality of Mercy Strained: Wrestling the Pardoning Power from the King, 69 Tex. L. R. S69, 627 (1991).*
[*NOTE: For example: President Carter commuted the 20 year sentence of Watergate conspirator G. Gordon Liddy after 4 years and 3 months because Liddy had served much more time than the other Watergate participants. Id. The reason given by the White House Counsel was that "[it] was a clear case of unfair disparity." Id. (citations omitted).]
You also argue that Mr. Pollard's sentence was not disproportionate. But that is clearly incorrect. As thoroughly documented in Mr. Pollard's commutation application, his sentence was manifestly inconsistent with the punishment historically imposed for disclosing intelligence information to an ally of the United States. Indeed, the more than seven-year period that Mr. Pollard has already served is much closer to the typical sentence for comparable offenses. The only other life sentences imposed for espionage in the United States of which we are aware -- including each of the instances cited in your memorandum -- involved individuals who spied for the Soviet Union (or Eastern block countries that were under its control) during the Cold War. We believe that Mr. Pollard is the only person in the history of our Nation to receive a life sentence for giving information to an ally.
3. The Pertinence of the Fact that Mr. Pollard Spied for a Close Ally
Your memorandum asserts that it is irrelevant that Mr. Pollard provided intelligence information to Israel, one of the United States closest allies, as opposed to a country that is hostile to the United States. That assertion is legally incorrect and morally perplexing. While it may be a crime to disclose any classified information to anyone, both the law and society recognize the difference between efforts to harm the United States by giving information to its enemies and supplying data to an ally to help save the lives of victims of aggression.
You contend that "as a legal matter, the law on espionage does not distinguish between allies and enemies. . . ." But the law, including the Constitution of the United States most certainly does make such a distinction. The most serious espionage crime is treason, which, unlike Mr. Pollard's offense, is punishable by death, and is defined explicitly in the Constitution as consisting "only in levying war against [the United States), or in adhering to their Enemies [or] giving them Aid and Comfort." (emphasis added) . The statutes on espionage also recognize that providing information to an enemy is different in kind from and more reprehensible than supplying information to a country that is an ally of the United States, explicitly singling out the former for special treatment. Compare 18 U.S.C. 794(b) and 794(a); 18 U.S.C. 2382. The law distinguishes between those whose conduct occurred with reason to believe it may harm the United States. Mr. Pollard was not charged with that offense.
Moreover, the vastly harsher sentences imposed on individuals who have committed espionage against the United States an behalf of hostile nations demonstrate the obvious and fundamental principle that spying for an enemy is a far more egregious offense that deserves more severe punishment than providing intelligence data to an ally. As discussed above, life sentence have historically been reserved exclusively for individuals who have spied for countries that are hostile to the United States, while persons who, like Mr. Pollard, assisted allies have been subjected to far less severe punishments that more closely approximate the time that Mr. Pollard has already served in prison.
Your memorandum also misleadingly suggests that Mr. Pollard's reliance on the hostile nation/ally dichotomy is an attempt by him to excuse or justify his conduct. But that is not Mr. Pollard's point at all. Mr. Pollard acknowledges that he violated an important law of the United States. He pleaded guilty to that offense and agreed to cooperate fully with the government's investigation of his conduct. He has repeatedly expressed regret and remorse for his conduct and for any and all harm that his offense may have caused. Mr. Pollard is not arguing that his unlawful conduct in justified because he was motivated only by a desire to save lives.
But those who ask for an humanitarian commutation of Mr. Pollard's sentence to a severe punishment equivalent to the punishment already imposed are surely entitled to emphasize that Mr. Pollard's actions, admittedly wrong, was inspired by the desire to protect against violent aggression, to prevent a holocaust and to allow the people of Israel to defend themselves. This is a legitimate and important basis for the sentence commutation being sought from President Clinton.
4. Conditions of Incarceration
The fact that Mr. Pollard has been in solitary confinement for several years is not a "myth." And it is not a "myth" that Mr. Pollard has been incarcerated in the nation's harshest maximum security prison. Mr. Pollard did not ask to be placed in Marion prison -- where security measures are necessary to protect him from anti-Semitic prison gangs. Moreover, NJCRAC should understand that it is exceedingly difficult for Mr. Pollard to chronicle his specific, day-to-day prison experiences without exposing himself to repercussions. It should be obvious to anyone that solitary confinement in a prison containing the most violent and vicious criminals in the nation is not a circumstance that should be ignored or labeled as a "myth."
As a technical matter, Mr. Pollard was not sentenced to "life without possibility of parole," and parole may legally be considered in 1995. But your implication that the possibility of parole makes commutation unnecessary - is incorrect and misguided. The law enforcement and intelligence agency officials who will be given the opportunity to express themselves on the subject have indicated that they will oppose parole. Immediately following sentencing, the U.S. Attorney said that Mr. Pollard would "never see the light of day." Parole is a virtual impossibility under these circumstances. Your emphasis on the highly unlikely theoretical possibility of parole avoids addressing the circumstances and fairness of Mr. Pollard's incarceration. The fact is that he has been punished enough already.
6. The Government's Breach of the Plea Agreement
You agree in your memorandum that there are "legitimate questions" regarding the government's conduct at the time of sentencing in conjunction with its plea bargain.
However, you selectively omit a full discussion of the issue and the pertinence of it to Mr. Pollard's request for a commutation of his sentence.
The fact is that the government violated its plea bargain with Mr. Pollard in several fundamental respects. Nearly everyone who has examined the circumstances agrees with that conclusion. Indeed, this situation was severely questioned by the federal appellate court that reviewed Mr. Pollard's sentence. Despite the government's agreement in exchange for Mr. Pollard's plea of guilty to temper its rhetoric at the tide of sentencing, not to seek a life sentence, and to point out that Pollard's cooperation with the government had been valuable, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the government had engaged in "hard-nosed dealings," Pollard v. United States, 939 F.2d 10110, 1030, cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 322 (1992), and that the government's conduct was "problematic" and "troublesome." Id. at 1026. Dissenting Judge Stephen Williams concluded that the government violated material terms of Mr. Pollard's plea agreement, resulting in a "fundamental miscarriage of justice." Id. at 1032. And the government's forceful, bitter and antagonistic rhetoric produced the very life sentence it had agreed not to seek. Although the courts declined for technical reasons to set aside Mr. Pollard's sentence, there are no such constraints on the President's constitutional power to commute Mr. Pollard's sentence and thereby to redress the injustice of a sentence of life in prison despite the government's promise not to seek such a sentence.
NJCRAC's characterization of the facts is revealing. It says that Pollard's claim of a government breach of the plea bargain is "not entirely a myth". This is a very peculiar choice of words to describe an audacious, deliberate and manifest injustice.
7. The Secretary of Defense's Submission of a Memoranda During the Sentencing Process and Use of the Word "Treason"
Your brief discussion of the memoranda submitted by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger during the sentencing proceedings and your astonishing efforts to rationalize Secretary Weinberger's use of the word "treason" to describe Mr. Pollard's conduct overlooks completely the improper nature and devastating impact that that submission had on Mr. Pollard's case.
The Secretary of Defense was not "obliged to submit a pre-sentencing memorandum." No law or custom requires it. It was an entirely gratuitous and intentionally forceful symbolic act by the nation's highest national security official.
The Secretary of Defense's memoranda did not relay objective facts about possible damage to national security caused by Mr. Pollard. Rather, the Secretary went to extraordinary and unprecedented lengths to volunteer extremely prejudicial and unjustified statements unjustified statements of opinion such as Pollard's "loyalty to Israel transcended his loyalty to the United States," and "the punishment imposed should reflect the perfidy of [his] actions (and) the magnitude of the treason committed," (emphasis added).
Judge Williams found that these statements amounted to a call for a life sentence in "all but name", and constituted a
"flagrant violation of the (plea) agreement's spirit . . . . [T]he repeated use of superlatives implied an appeal for the maximum (sentence). Weinberger's reference to treason took the point further. Whereas treason carries the death penalty, and involves aiding the nation's enemies, Pollard was charged with espionage, carrying a maximum of life imprisonment and encompassing aid even to friendly nations - here, Israel . . . Weinberger's subtext was that the heaviest possible sentence was the lightest that was just."
Mr. Pollard did not commit treason, was not accused of treason and did not plead guilty to treason, and even the Government has now acknowledged that use of that terminology was both unwarranted and "regrettable". In fact, Mr. Pollard pleaded guilty to one count of violating 1a U.S.C. S 794, the transmission of national security information to a foreign government. Mr. Pollard's conviction was not even based upon that portion of # 794 that is predicated on an intent or reason to believe that harm to the United States would result from his conduct.
The Chanes memorandum's explanation that Secretary Weinberger was not using the word "treason" in its "formal and legal sense", is nothing short of outrageous. The Secretary was one of the nation's top officials, filing a formal legal document in the name of the United States under the supervision of the United States Attorney in a formal and extremely serious legal proceeding in a proceeding in a case that he, himself, characterized as very important. The word "treason" was intentionally used, as evidenced by the simultaneous use of the term "traitorously" by the Assistant United States Attorney. The assertion that the Secretary and the Government did not know the meaning of the word "treason" in that context is absurd. It was intended to secure a life sentence for Jonathan Pollard and it worked.
We will not comment an the remainder of the memorandum or the NJCRAC process. Those are matters for NJCRAC and its CJF member agencies. However, we do expect that NJCRAC will feel obliged to disseminate only accurate information concerning the Pollard case in the future.
In sum, your March 23 memorandum does not "provide accurate information" about the Pollard case. Rather, it either inaccurately portrays or omits entirely facts that we believe are vitally important and that would be of great interest to the NJCRAC and CJF member agencies. Your memorandum does not even mention that the government of Israel has specifically requested the President to grant Mr. Pollard's request for commutation. Such omissions seriously call into question the objectivity of your "fact-finding" efforts.
Very truly yours,
Theodore B. Olsen